362:, the Fifth Circuit said "Since the spider does not cause physical injury to the chattel, there must be some evidence that the use or utility of the computer (or computer network) being 'spiderized' is adversely affected by the use of the spider. No such evidence is presented here. This court respectfully disagrees with other district courts' finding that mere use of a spider to enter a publicly available web site to gather information, without more, is sufficient to fulfill the harm requirement for trespass to chattels."
292:
because other companies might follow BE's example: "If the court were to hold otherwise, it would likely encourage other auction aggregators to crawl the eBay site, potentially to the point of denying effective access to eBay's customers. If preliminary injunctive relief were denied, and other aggregators began to crawl the eBay site, there appears to be little doubt that the load on eBay's computer system would qualify as a substantial impairment of condition or value."
31:
268:
likelihood of prevailing on the trespass claim to support eBay's requested injunctive relief. Because the court found eBay entitled to the relief requested based on its trespass claim, the court did not address the remaining claims. The opinion first addressed the merits of the trespass claim, then BE's arguments regarding copyright preemption of the trespass claim, and finally the public interest.
166:
eBay wanted BE to access the eBay system only when a BE user queried the BE system. Doing so would increase the accuracy/currency of the data BE presented to its users and impose a lighter load on eBay's network. BE accessed eBay approximately 100,000 times a day, constituting about 1.53% of eBay's
135:
Bidder's Edge ("BE") was founded in 1997 as an "aggregator" of auction listings. Its website provided a database of auction listings that BE automatically collected from various auction sites, including eBay. Accordingly, BE's users could easily search auction listings from throughout the web rather
300:
The parties argued that the
Internet would cease to function if, according to eBay, personal and intellectual property rights were not respected, or, according to BE, if information published on the Internet could not be universally accessed and used. The court suspected that the Internet would not
291:
Nevertheless, the court found that although BE's interference was not substantial, "any intermeddling with or use of another's personal property" established BE's possessory interference with eBay's chattel. Further, BE's use of eBay's bandwidth and system resources, even though small, harmed eBay
354:
court considered the eBay court analysis, which stated that if BE's activity were allowed to continue unchecked, it would encourage other auction aggregators to engage in similar searching which would cause eBay irreparable harm. In analyzing this point, the Hamidi court stated,"e do not read as
333:
eBay and Bidder's Edge settled their legal disputes in March 2001. As part of the settlement, Bidder's Edge paid eBay an undisclosed amount and agreed not to access and re-post eBay's auction information. The settlement also required BE to drop its appeal of the preliminary injunction. Meanwhile,
162:
During this time, the parties contemplated striking a formal license agreement. These negotiations did not conclude successfully because the parties could not agree on technical issues. Subsequently, in early 1999, BE added auction listings from many other sites in its database, including eBay's.
183:
On
November 2, 1999, BE issued a press release indicating that it had resumed including eBay auction listings on its site. On November 9, 1999, eBay sent BE a letter reasserting that BE's activities were unauthorized, insisting that BE cease accessing the eBay site, alleging that BE's activities
287:
eBay argued that BE's use was unauthorized and intentional. The court said that eBay had not permitted BE's activity simply by having a website available over the
Internet. BE had violated eBay's terms of use and ignored eBay's requests to stop using its crawlers. BE responded that it was not
267:
BE filed antitrust counterclaims on
February 7, 2000. The counterclaims charged eBay with monopolization, attempted monopolization, unfair business practices and interference with contractual relations. On May 24, 2000, District Court Judge Whyte found that eBay had established a sufficient
288:
causing eBay irreparable harm because its activity (80,000–100,000 hits per day) represented only a small fraction (approximately 1 ½ percent) of the overall activity on eBay's site. eBay acknowledged that BE's activity was only a relatively slight interference with eBay's servers.
301:
only survive but continue to grow and develop regardless of its ruling. The court noted that particularly on the limited record available at the preliminary injunction stage, it was unable to determine whether the general public interest factors favored or opposed a
179:
In late August or early
September 1999, eBay requested by telephone that BE cease posting eBay auction listings on its site. BE agreed to do so. In October 1999, BE learned that other auction aggregations sites were including information about eBay auctions.
158:
auction listings in BE's database. It is unclear whether BE scraped these listings from eBay or linked to them in some other format. However, on April 24, 1999, eBay verbally approved BE automatically "crawling" the eBay web site for a period of 90 days.
317:
Based on its findings, the court issued a preliminary injunction against BE from "using any automated query program, robot, or similar device to access eBay's computer systems or networks for the purpose of copying any part of eBay's auction database."
167:
total daily requests. BE wanted to periodically crawl eBay's entire website to compile its own auction database, which would increase the speed of BE's response to user queries and allow BE to notify its users when eBay auctions changed.
192:
As a result, eBay attempted to block BE from accessing the eBay site; by the end of
November 1999, eBay had blocked a total of 169 IP addresses it believed BE was using to query eBay's system. BE continued crawling eBay's site by using
355:
expressing the court's complete view of the issue. In isolation, moreover, would not be a correct statement of
California or general American law on this point." As a result, the opinion may be or may no longer be valid precedent.
308:
BE also argued that eBay engaged in anticompetitive behavior. However, the district court was not obligated to consider the merits of any antitrust counterclaims once it decided that eBay had a likelihood of success on the merits.
175:
Due to the disagreement regarding technical issues, at the end of the 90-day period, eBay notified BE that its activities were no longer permitted, but eBay offered again to license BE's activities. BE did not accept eBay's offer.
823:
468:
358:
Further, since eBay was issued, some courts have become more circumspect about the "slippery slope" argument that eBay successfully made about additional crawlers following BE's lead. For example, in
127:' to gather data from eBay's website. The opinion was a leading case applying 'trespass to chattels' to online activities, although its analysis has been criticized in more recent jurisprudence.
210:
41:
326:
One day after it filed federal antitrust charges against eBay, Bidder's Edge announced it would be acquired by OpenSite, an auction software company. However, the deal fell through when
123:
company, successfully used the 'trespass to chattels' theory to obtain a preliminary injunction preventing Bidder's Edge, an auction data aggregator, from using a '
828:
197:
to evade eBay's IP address blocks. Information requests sent through such servers cannot easily be traced back to the originating
813:
280:
Bidder's Edge intentionally and without authorization interfered with eBay's possessory interest in the computer system; and
776:
460:
163:
Despite the integration of many websites' listings, nearly 69% of the listings in BE's database were from eBay.
71:
758:
550:
572:
735:
236:
679:
808:
201:, which allowed Bidder's Edge to evade eBay's attempts to block queries from the originating IP address.
818:
767:
654:
784:
484:
343:
254:
217:
112:
98:
213:
federal court. eBay moved for a preliminary injunction on the following causes of action:
8:
791:
242:
229:
705:
494:
260:
489:
248:
184:
constituted a trespass of eBay's chattels and offering to license BE's activities.
276:
The court said that eBay's trespass to chattels claim required it to show that:
327:
120:
525:
802:
628:
602:
498:
194:
140:
86:
824:
United States
District Court for the Northern District of California cases
151:
124:
111:, 100 F. Supp. 2d 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2000), was a leading case applying the
68:
283:
Bidder's Edge's unauthorized use proximately resulted in damage to eBay.
302:
223:
198:
144:
464:
347:, a case interpreting California's common law trespass to chattels.
147:) disallowed crawling of auction listings without prior permission.
42:
United States
District Court for the Northern District of California
739:
558:
580:
337:
In 2003, the
California Supreme Court implicitly overruled the
321:
30:
155:
360:
White Buffalo Ventures LLC v. University of Texas at Austin
224:
False advertising under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
116:
334:
Bidder's Edge shut down its website on February 21, 2001.
170:
209:
eBay sued Bidder's Edge on December 10, 1999, in the
136:than having to go to each individual auction site.
731:White Buffalo Ventures, LLC v. University of Texas
800:
680:"EBay, Bidder's Edge Settle Suits on Web Access"
255:Interference with prospective economic advantage
187:
237:Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030
793:Ticketmaster L.L.C. v. RMG Technologies, Inc.
322:Subsequent developments and negative history
703:
603:"Bidder's Edge pushes Web site over cliff"
150:In early 1998, eBay allowed BE to include
115:doctrine to online activities. In 2000,
523:
629:"eBay, Bidder's Edge end legal dispute"
450:
448:
446:
444:
442:
440:
438:
436:
434:
432:
430:
428:
426:
424:
422:
420:
418:
416:
414:
412:
410:
408:
406:
404:
402:
400:
398:
396:
394:
271:
801:
392:
390:
388:
386:
384:
382:
380:
378:
376:
374:
130:
524:Hoffmann, Jay (September 15, 2020).
519:
517:
515:
479:
477:
171:Further developments leading to suit
371:
13:
557:. January 16, 1999. Archived from
295:
14:
840:
748:
704:Ina Steiner (February 16, 2001).
512:
474:
143:) and "robot exclusion headers" (
485:"EBay Fights Spiders on the Web"
29:
829:United States property case law
723:
706:"Bidder's Edge Shuts Its Doors"
697:
211:Northern District of California
814:2000 in United States case law
672:
647:
621:
595:
565:
543:
1:
579:. May 4, 2001. Archived from
365:
188:IP address blocking and proxy
461:100 F. Supp. 2d 1058
7:
754:Text of is available from:
204:
10:
845:
573:"cgi.ebay.com/robots.txt"
551:"www.ebay.com/robots.txt"
139:eBay's "User Agreement" (
97:
92:
82:
77:
63:
55:
47:
37:
28:
23:
312:
530:The History of the Web
303:preliminary injunction
456:eBay v. Bidder's Edge
339:eBay v. Bidder's Edge
108:eBay v. Bidder's Edge
24:eBay v. Bidder's Edge
736:420 F.3d 366
561:on January 16, 1999.
272:Trespass to chattels
218:Trespass to chattels
113:trespass to chattels
99:trespass to chattels
526:"Chapter 4: Search"
809:2000 in California
710:EcommerceBytes.com
471:from the original.
243:Unfair competition
230:Trademark dilution
131:Origins of dispute
635:. CBS Interactive
609:. CBS Interactive
493:. July 31, 2000.
330:bought OpenSite.
261:Unjust enrichment
235:violation of the
104:
103:
836:
781:
775:
772:
766:
763:
757:
743:
733:
727:
721:
720:
718:
716:
701:
695:
694:
692:
690:
676:
670:
669:
667:
665:
651:
645:
644:
642:
640:
625:
619:
618:
616:
614:
599:
593:
592:
590:
588:
569:
563:
562:
547:
541:
540:
538:
536:
521:
510:
509:
507:
505:
481:
472:
467: 2000),
458:
452:
249:Misappropriation
78:Court membership
33:
21:
20:
844:
843:
839:
838:
837:
835:
834:
833:
819:EBay litigation
799:
798:
786:Intel v. Hamidi
779:
773:
770:
764:
761:
755:
751:
746:
729:
728:
724:
714:
712:
702:
698:
688:
686:
678:
677:
673:
663:
661:
653:
652:
648:
638:
636:
627:
626:
622:
612:
610:
601:
600:
596:
586:
584:
571:
570:
566:
549:
548:
544:
534:
532:
522:
513:
503:
501:
483:
482:
475:
454:
453:
372:
368:
344:Intel v. Hamidi
324:
315:
298:
296:Public interest
274:
207:
190:
173:
133:
17:
12:
11:
5:
842:
832:
831:
826:
821:
816:
811:
797:
796:
789:
782:
768:Google Scholar
750:
749:External links
747:
745:
744:
722:
696:
671:
655:"The Recorder"
646:
620:
594:
583:on May 4, 2001
564:
542:
511:
473:
369:
367:
364:
328:Siebel Systems
323:
320:
314:
311:
297:
294:
285:
284:
281:
273:
270:
265:
264:
258:
252:
246:
240:
233:
227:
221:
206:
203:
189:
186:
172:
169:
132:
129:
121:online auction
102:
101:
95:
94:
90:
89:
84:
80:
79:
75:
74:
65:
61:
60:
57:
53:
52:
49:
45:
44:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
841:
830:
827:
825:
822:
820:
817:
815:
812:
810:
807:
806:
804:
795:
794:
790:
788:
787:
783:
778:
769:
760:
759:CourtListener
753:
752:
741:
737:
732:
726:
711:
707:
700:
685:
681:
675:
660:
656:
650:
634:
630:
624:
608:
604:
598:
582:
578:
574:
568:
560:
556:
552:
546:
531:
527:
520:
518:
516:
500:
496:
492:
491:
486:
480:
478:
470:
466:
462:
457:
451:
449:
447:
445:
443:
441:
439:
437:
435:
433:
431:
429:
427:
425:
423:
421:
419:
417:
415:
413:
411:
409:
407:
405:
403:
401:
399:
397:
395:
393:
391:
389:
387:
385:
383:
381:
379:
377:
375:
370:
363:
361:
356:
353:
348:
346:
345:
340:
335:
331:
329:
319:
310:
306:
304:
293:
289:
282:
279:
278:
277:
269:
262:
259:
256:
253:
250:
247:
244:
241:
238:
234:
231:
228:
225:
222:
219:
216:
215:
214:
212:
202:
200:
196:
195:proxy servers
185:
181:
177:
168:
164:
160:
157:
153:
152:Beanie Babies
148:
146:
142:
137:
128:
126:
122:
118:
114:
110:
109:
100:
96:
91:
88:
85:
83:Judge sitting
81:
76:
73:
70:
66:
62:
58:
54:
50:
46:
43:
40:
36:
32:
27:
22:
19:
792:
785:
730:
725:
713:. Retrieved
709:
699:
687:. Retrieved
683:
674:
662:. Retrieved
658:
649:
637:. Retrieved
632:
623:
611:. Retrieved
606:
597:
585:. Retrieved
581:the original
576:
567:
559:the original
554:
545:
533:. Retrieved
529:
502:. Retrieved
488:
455:
359:
357:
351:
349:
342:
338:
336:
332:
325:
316:
307:
299:
290:
286:
275:
266:
208:
191:
182:
178:
174:
165:
161:
149:
141:terms of use
138:
134:
107:
106:
105:
87:Ronald Whyte
51:May 24, 2000
18:
16:Leading case
742: 2005).
341:opinion in
69:F. Supp. 2d
59:99-cv-21200
56:Docket nos.
803:Categories
366:References
199:IP Address
145:robots.txt
535:August 2,
504:August 2,
499:1059-1028
465:N.D. Cal.
740:5th Cir.
715:June 20,
689:June 20,
664:June 20,
639:June 20,
613:June 20,
469:archived
205:Lawsuits
93:Keywords
64:Citation
684:latimes
659:law.com
125:crawler
48:Decided
780:
777:Justia
774:
771:
765:
762:
756:
738: (
734:,
587:May 4,
497:
463: (
459:,
352:Hamidi
490:Wired
313:Order
156:Furby
119:, an
38:Court
717:2015
691:2015
666:2015
641:2015
633:CNET
615:2015
607:CNET
589:2001
577:eBay
555:eBay
537:2024
506:2024
495:ISSN
350:The
154:and
117:eBay
72:1058
67:100
257:and
805::
708:.
682:.
657:.
631:.
605:.
575:.
553:.
528:.
514:^
487:.
476:^
373:^
305:.
719:.
693:.
668:.
643:.
617:.
591:.
539:.
508:.
263:.
251:,
245:,
239:,
232:,
226:,
220:,
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
